Life After People

Major, you did NOT address my points in post # 29. Put up or shut up. I've pointed out from Scripture why Epimanes the Chump is not the "little horn", and if I'm wrong, then address each point as to why that is so. Should be simple for someone so confident in his position, right?

Limit your sarcasm my friend! This is your mode of operation on every conversation. When you are unable to face reality you resort to sarcasm.

YOU have been shown over and over by more than just me and you refuse to accept what is shown to you.

I have asked you over and over to respond to certain historical facts and you have totally ignored me and now you make assertion of "Put up or shut up".

Don't you think that is rather ambiguous and miss-leading????
 
Major, you did NOT address my points in post # 29. Put up or shut up. I've pointed out from Scripture why Epimanes the Chump is not the "little horn", and if I'm wrong, then address each point as to why that is so. Should be simple for someone so confident in his position, right?

Phoneman..........If you think that I am going to take the time to respond to your long list of SDA website false teachings, you are very mistaken my man. I have no intention to take my preciouse time to do something that I already know you will reject. IF I did that, then you would be in control of my life and I wouild be at your beck and call and that my man is not going to happen.

I believe that if you will actually watch the vidio on comment #51, it wiladdress your concerns in comment #29. Now YOU take YOUR time and follow up and you will have what you need.

IF however you would like to do one at a time with Bible verses that you are confused about I will try and help you.
 
If the topic at hand were as important as the context of that quotation (Isaiah 1:18), I would agree with you, but I think I'll have to be satisfied to call this a nonessential matter. If you can somehow manage to use reasoning to reach any sort of definitive conclusion about what exactly this prophecy means, you're a much smarter person that I am.

I suppose you'll have to decide for yourself about just how important this issue is in a practical way in how we live as disciples of Christ, and how insistent you really need to be that everyone conforms to your beliefs about it.
Please don't confuse an expectation of a reasonable answer to a spiritual proposition (such as how can Epimanes can be the "little horn" when it is said to have risen during the "latter time" stage of the four Greek divisions while Epimanes arose at the early stage of those divisions) with insistence for conformation to that proposition. "Despise not prophesyings, prove all things..."

Since you've brought up the question of living as a disciple of Jesus, the Bible specifically describes those in the last days who do not get the Mark of the Beast as "they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." Therefore, knowing what God's commandments are and what true faith is, as well as who the Beast is and what is the Beast's Mark, are issues that are anything but "nonessential" in my view.
 
Limit your sarcasm my friend! This is your mode of operation on every conversation. When you are unable to face reality you resort to sarcasm.

YOU have been shown over and over by more than just me and you refuse to accept what is shown to you.

I have asked you over and over to respond to certain historical facts and you have totally ignored me and now you make assertion of "Put up or shut up".

Don't you think that is rather ambiguous and miss-leading????
Major, you have not responded to either one of these two questions, and I'm interested in what you have to say about them. A legitimate response would be that you address the points that are on the table - your tactic of ignoring them while posting unrelated "proof" that Epimanes is in fact the "little horn" is tiresome. Just answer the questions, please:
  • How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to arise during the "latter time" stage of the Greek divisions while Epimanes arose during the early stage?
  • How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to be "exceeding great" beyond the mere "very great' first king (Alexander the Great) notable horn, yet history tells us that Epimanes was a two bit chump who was at best "exceeding mediocre"?
 
In context scripture is pretty crystal on what God's commandments are and His nature - any contradiction to this is not of God. If you are not secure in your faith or salvation maybe it is time to reassess the road you're on. The beast nor his mark is at play yet, altho we can all feel the rise of it. Personally, I don't think I will be here, as I am (mortal) when that happens but I have my theories. I don't think anyone should accept dna upgrades during that time :). I'm curious tho, Phoneman who you think the beast is and what the mark will be.
 
Phoneman..........If you think that I am going to take the time to respond to your long list of SDA website false teachings, you are very mistaken my man. I have no intention to take my preciouse time to do something that I already know you will reject. IF I did that, then you would be in control of my life and I wouild be at your beck and call and that my man is not going to happen.

I believe that if you will actually watch the vidio on comment #51, it wiladdress your concerns in comment #29. Now YOU take YOUR time and follow up and you will have what you need.

IF however you would like to do one at a time with Bible verses that you are confused about I will try and help you.
It is the consensus view among Protestants that the Roman Catholic church is seriously flawed in just about every aspect of their existence, so why should I watch a video that promotes Jesuit Futurism, as if this idea is some diamond in the rough? Just address one point at a time, then.
 
It is the consensus view among Protestants that the Roman Catholic church is seriously flawed in just about every aspect of their existence, so why should I watch a video that promotes Jesuit Futurism, as if this idea is some diamond in the rough? Just address one point at a time, then.

Because it answers your questions?
 
In context scripture is pretty crystal on what God's commandments are and His nature - any contradiction to this is not of God. If you are not secure in your faith or salvation maybe it is time to reassess the road you're on. The beast nor his mark is at play yet, altho we can all feel the rise of it. Personally, I don't think I will be here, as I am (mortal) when that happens but I have my theories. I don't think anyone should accept dna upgrades during that time :). I'm curious tho, Phoneman who you think the beast is and what the mark will be.
It's clear that the Mosaic Law was nailed to the cross, seeing that we no longer sacrifice lambs, require circumcision, etc. It is also clear that it will never be OK to have other gods before God, worship idols, blaspheme, etc. In other words, God's Ten Commandments remain for us to obey, and since those who don't get the Mark of the Beast are said to "keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus", it stands to reason that those who do get the Mark are in fact breaking the commandments b/c they have no faith in Jesus. My opinion of who the Beast is and what it's Mark is doesn't matter, only what the Bible reveals about this, seeing that God would not issue the most fearful curse in the Bible ("if any man worship the Beast...the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture...) and not make possible that we could know who this Beast is.
 
Please don't confuse an expectation of a reasonable answer to a spiritual proposition (such as how can Epimanes can be the "little horn" when it is said to have risen during the "latter time" stage of the four Greek divisions while Epimanes arose at the early stage of those divisions) with insistence for conformation to that proposition. "Despise not prophesyings, prove all things..."

Since you've brought up the question of living as a disciple of Jesus, the Bible specifically describes those in the last days who do not get the Mark of the Beast as "they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." Therefore, knowing what God's commandments are and what true faith is, as well as who the Beast is and what is the Beast's Mark, are issues that are anything but "nonessential" in my view.

We've already discussed, and you seemed to agree, that knowing the gospel alone will be sufficient in identifying any antichrist through his message. I certainly don't plan on worshiping anyone but God, or following someone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (which is how the scriptures instruct us on how to identify any antichrist, as we've already discussed). I have read the various new testament descriptions of the antichrist and his mark. Are these insufficient descriptions?

I don't "despise" prophecy, friend (especially not in the context it's used in the 1 Thess verse you quoted from), I simply find myself less capable than you of discerning the meaning of this particular prophecy. You seem to be suggesting that interpreting this particular prophecy correctly reveals some particular commands and the nature of "true faith" that aren't discussed elsewhere in scripture? I don't consider God's commands or my faith any less essential that you do, I expect, and you certainly seem passionate about them. I simply utterly fail at seeing what this prophecy has to do with those things.
 
"they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."
...knowing what God's commandments are and what true faith is

I suspect that we are simultaneously discussing a far broader range of subjects that I was aware of. If you wish to discuss these matters, I am happy to do so, but I would prefer to do it privately, as I suspect this public forum carries some degree of emotional investment that prevents healthy discussion. If that seems reasonable to you, please try to send me a message privately. I did try to send you a private message, but I get an error message saying that I can't.

At any rate, I expect this thread will be locked soon, as the discussion has begun to circulate, so if you wish to continue speaking about these things, I think that private conversation will be our only option. And I would like to continue discussing it, if you are willing.
 
I fail to understand how "some degree of emotional investment..prevents healthy discussion"? I don't have an emotional response to the discussion. Phoneman asks for so called answers to his arguments and then refuses to address the answers. The videos I posted specifically answers his arguments about Daniel chapters 7 thru 10. If Phoneman had further argument than he should address those. My guess is he doesn't want or accept any answers whether typed or watched that don't agree with his own view. I'm not Catholic and I get my instruction from reading scripture in-context. If I followed catholic doctrine or agreed with it - then I would be Catholic. I'm surprised Major watched the video :) but what he said is true. A great deal of time is spent in the video delineating arguments for and against certain view points and how scripture is either met or contradicted. Nebuchanezzar's dream includes 4 empires plus the feet. Babylon is the first - falling to the Medo-Persian empire, which in turn falls to the Greeks, and the Greeks fall to Rome (Iron). Chapter 7 is about latter day antichrist. Chapter 8 defines that number 3 IS Greek and a foreshadow of antichrist before Christ is born. The 4th beast is undescribed, probably because Rome didn't exist period in Daniel's time. Iron does identify it. Which leaves the feet which is the time we are in. This is a combo of iron and clay. What is left but the east and west of the Roman empire?
 
It is the consensus view among Protestants that the Roman Catholic church is seriously flawed in just about every aspect of their existence, so why should I watch a video that promotes Jesuit Futurism, as if this idea is some diamond in the rough? Just address one point at a time, then.

So that you would be able to get the answer to YOUR question about comment #29. THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED!!!!

As has been pointed out to you over and over........you make accusations toward others but YOU do not address what is given to you. That my dear friend in the long run is going to alienate you and people will not want to communicate with you.
 
Major, you have not responded to either one of these two questions, and I'm interested in what you have to say about them. A legitimate response would be that you address the points that are on the table - your tactic of ignoring them while posting unrelated "proof" that Epimanes is in fact the "little horn" is tiresome. Just answer the questions, please:
  • How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to arise during the "latter time" stage of the Greek divisions while Epimanes arose during the early stage?
  • How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to be "exceeding great" beyond the mere "very great' first king (Alexander the Great) notable horn, yet history tells us that Epimanes was a two bit chump who was at best "exceeding mediocre"?

And you have not responded to anything at all when given to you. You wanted an explanation to comment #29 and when given you refused to watch the video.

I am going to do this ONE MORE time for you and then I am done. Now, remove the Ellen G. White dogma from your thinking and follow me in the Scriptures.

#1.....
You asked......
"How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to arise during the "latter time" stage of the Greek divisions while Epimanes arose during the early stage?'

Daniel 8:22-23........(ESV)
22 As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power. 23 And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise."

Daniel 8:22-23 (NKJV)
"As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.
23 “And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise, Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes."

Now if you can see this then there is nothing I can do for you. "THE LATTER TIME" that you choose to make the time of the end of days is the time of these four kingdoms rising out of the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. One particular king was to be outstanding for his fierce opposition to God's people...Israel. This KING OF FOERCE COUNTENANCE was Antiochus Epiphanies.

Daniel now gives a preview of what this man will do.......

8:24-25
"24 His power shall be great—but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand."

That is exactly what Antiochus did!!!! Ancient history proves this to be the case. Then the 23oo DAYS spoken of in 8:14 refers to the primary time of his deceitful and outrageous conduct and actions against the Jews from about 171 BC to 165 BC when he died strangely while on an expedition to Persia.


#2....
Then you ask
"How can Epimanes be the "little horn" when the Bible says it was to be "exceeding great" beyond the mere "very great' first king (Alexander the Great) notable horn, yet history tells us that Epimanes was a two bit chump who was at best "exceeding mediocre"?

Seriously????? You are talking about sematictics not Bible truth. Bible truth is not what YOUR opinion is Phoneman. Please stop using the thoughts of those who post such things on the internet. Look at what it is doing to YOUR understanding.

Antiochus took away the daily sacrifices, he desecrated the Temple, he took control of the activities of the Temple, he offered a pig on the alter and defiled the House of God. YOU may think that he was not much but I can promise you that the Jews of that day thought he was EXCEEDINGLY GREAT.
 
We've already discussed, and you seemed to agree, that knowing the gospel alone will be sufficient in identifying any antichrist through his message. I certainly don't plan on worshiping anyone but God, or following someone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (which is how the scriptures instruct us on how to identify any antichrist, as we've already discussed). I have read the various new testament descriptions of the antichrist and his mark. Are these insufficient descriptions?

I don't "despise" prophecy, friend (especially not in the context it's used in the 1 Thess verse you quoted from), I simply find myself less capable than you of discerning the meaning of this particular prophecy. You seem to be suggesting that interpreting this particular prophecy correctly reveals some particular commands and the nature of "true faith" that aren't discussed elsewhere in scripture? I don't consider God's commands or my faith any less essential that you do, I expect, and you certainly seem passionate about them. I simply utterly fail at seeing what this prophecy has to do with those things.

Well said Roads. Anytime Bible truth is presented, you can be sure that there will be a directional change in the topic to get away from the context that proves the truth of God's Word.
 
If it promotes Jesuit Futurism, it only answers one question: "What can we do to combat these Protestant innovators and their claims that we are the Antichrist?"

Phoneman.....I see that you keep using the words "JESUIT FUTURISM" as if it is some kind of trash found at the bottom of a garbage can.

Since you continue to do that I am sure that you will not be oppossed to us using the phrase of "EGW PRETERISM DOGMA" when referring to your interpretations?????????

There is something that needs to bepointed out once again to you. The doctrine we are talking about does not stand or fall on who may have first noticed and taught certain elements of doctrine in scripture. The doctrine is valid only if it is supported by scripture.

The Protestant reformation was based on turning to scripture to resolve matters.

2 Timothy 3:16..........
" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

That alone should be enough to put this entire matter to rest, and nothing more need be said. It is obvious that we must agree that something true, such as 2+2=4, remains true, even when such a truth is spoken by a liar, or the most evil man who ever lived.

Bible Truth does not become untrue just because an evil or stupid man speaks it. Therefore, there is simply no basis for the claim that the what we are talking about is an evil deception because futurism was once taught by an evil Jesuit. You keep saying that but the bottom line is that it has no basis for truth.

We all can read the Scriptures on any doctrine and come to the conclusion without any help from a commentator or teacher.

An example would be that some say the Rapture is not valid because so and so was a Jesuit or a liar or that he was ugly. BUT we all can read the Scriptures and come to our own conclusion without accepting anything from anyone in the past. This might well serve you in the future to come to grips with what I am saying to you.
 
What do you mean? They are parallel to each other..

Nope!

Chapter 7 is about the coming A/C.

Chapter 7:23-24
"And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."


and chapter 8 concerns Antiochus.
8:8-9
"Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven."

So then what is the problem????????? WHY is there such debate and contention????

Actually it is easy and very simple. Our brother Phoneman is a SDA believers, through and through. And the Adventist scholars over the years who have followed Mrs. Ellen G. White have accepted that the little horn of Daniel 8 did not arise from Greece, as the symbol of the Goat indicates, have suggested that the little horn comes from one of the "four winds" of heaven, rather than out of one of the four horns of the Goat as the Scriptures clearly say.
That is a choice to change the Word of God to what one wants it to say instead of believing what it actually does say.

They claim the Hebrew allows for this possible interpretation, but does it in fact aloow that interpretation?????

Daniel 8:8,9 -
..and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn..."

In Hebrew, words can be feminine, masculine, or neutral. In Dan. 8:9, the word "them" is masculine. Since "horns" is feminine, and "winds" can be either masculine or feminine, SDA scholars have suggested the word "them" must refer to "winds". And they fervently contend, that the little horn arose out of one of the four winds, separate from the Grecian Kingdom.

Why does it matter? The SDA realizes that if the ‘horn’ came out of one of the four divisions of Greece then their foundational doctrine is false; so they must contend that the little horn came out of the ‘wind’, and of course they will explain that this ‘wind’ is the far west wind of Italy. It is really very easy to believe with just a little study of this issue that the reader will see that the SDA reasoning for this is rather shallow.

What about CONTEXT?????
The context teaches that it does not matter if the verse read “And out of one of the four winds came forth a little horn” or “And out of one of the four notable ones came forth a little horn”: Because it does not change the fact that the horn from littleness rose from one of the four Grecian provinces.

The prophecy of Daniel 8 clearly teaches that at the death of the first king of Greece, the empire would be divided toward the four winds (in four directions); which simply means there would be a northern province, a southern province, an eastern province and a western province. And of course the prophecy was fulfilled exactly; After the death of Alexander, Greece was divided among his four generals. Ptolemy, began a dynasty in Egypt (South); and Seleucus did the same in Syria (North). Lycemicus took over Asia Minor (east) and Cassander took Mesopotamia (West).

Instead of referring to these provinces by name Daniel refers to them by their wind or direction. For example he refers to Syria and Egypt as the North and South in the following verses.

It is just that simple by brothers and sisters!
 
I am reminded that both the first AND second coming of Christ is predicted in the OT. In retrospect, we can see this clearly but before Christ's first coming, Jews combined the 2 prefering the 2nd before the first. It is part of the reasoning behind the Jews rejection. For the same reason, it is important to discern between foreshadows or the "spirit of the antichrist" or Satan and the actual personage predicted to show up in end days. There is reference in scripture to eight personages - 7 of whom presage the antichrist. The 1st being Nimrod and the 7th speculated as Hitler. Epiphanes is one of the 7.
 
Back
Top